Zentei, you're doing my job here.Lord Zentei wrote:Incorrect. The socialist state was to be an intermediary condition. Marx's end goal was a situation where the socialist system would become redundant.
![Heart Throb :luv:](./images/smilies/luv.gif)
Moderator: Alyrium Denryle
Zentei, you're doing my job here.Lord Zentei wrote:Incorrect. The socialist state was to be an intermediary condition. Marx's end goal was a situation where the socialist system would become redundant.
Originally,I wished to berate Ahklut for assuming that you,a Briton would know the challenges the US poor faces which isn't universal. For Singapore,the challenge would be more on time and money spent for kitchen equipment,issues which are greatly aggravated in the states by US food deserts.HMS Conqueror wrote:It doesn't; US's major dietary health problem is obesity and being obese only increases food costs. At the very worst - you kept buying the same food but ate less of it - they would stay the same.You also don't seem to understand nor care about how poverty limits access to cheaper sources of healthy food.
The other stuff is middle class handwringing, and while some of it has some scientific backing, a lot of it doesn't and none of it causes major health problems.
Nearly as many being less than as many, not more.[/quote]Moderately active children require nearly as many calories as moderately active adults.
Support the claim that it would be easy to make this switch despite the structural problems involved.You made twinky/wrong/no health claims depending. The overwhelmingly largest benefit from a dietary intervention the American poor can make is to eat less of whatever they're eating now.
You neglect to mention time,a just as important prenium,if not more so. Food prices in the States isn't uniform.Akhlut wrote: Not infinitely proportional, but higher quality food costs more; quality meat, vegetables, and so forth cost more per calorie than potato chips and foods chock-full of HFCS.
To whom do you think it is offensive? If to gays, why do you think it is bad to be a superhero? And if to superheroes, why do you think it is bad to be gay?Dalton wrote:Oh please. You make a ridiculously offensive blanket statement like that and you expect me to wave it off like it's nothing? You obnoxious turd.
This is nonsense. No one is fat because they 'lack access to healthful foods'. They're fat because they eat too much of whatever it is they eat.PainRack wrote:Poor access to healthful foods. Dispersion of foodstuff by the desert syndrome means relative long drives to purchase fresh foods.Time that poor people working shift work cant expend.
Because poverty and excess eating have similar causes: ignorance, lack of self-discipline, low time preference, etc.OKAY,mind explaining WHY obesity is predicted by socio economic status and ZIP codes?
How long have you lived in the UK to conclude that there is not a free market here, or that calcium can be produced more cheaply? (actually calcium is one of the cheapest nutrients, being plentifully supplied by full fat milk which is also one of the cheapest and most nutritious foods per price)They also need more access to calcium amd other trace nutrients,which in the free markets is more expensive than soda and more perishable. Again,the states is NOT the UK.
This is treated in the very first post of mine on this subject. Marx's "anarchism" is just another dialectical dodge, whereby he plays with definitions to argue it's not really a state if everyone likes it and it's run by the proletariat, since a state is defined (by him) as one class exercising power over another.Lord Zentei wrote:Incorrect. The socialist state was to be an intermediary condition. Marx's end goal was a situation where the socialist system would become redundant.
Your arguments are not intelligible otherwise.Incidentally, where the hell are you getting the idea that I'm mixing up "authoritarian" with "bad" and "liberal" with "good"? That doesn't make any kind of sense.
You're really dumb, HMS C. There's no proletariat in the future. All classes are destroyed, including the proletariat. Only a classless society may have no state. "A state everyone likes" is still a state. In fact, there wasn't even meant to be any "socialist state" (Marx never used the term "socialism" as any intermediate period). There was meant to be a lower stage of communism and a higher. A state is not defined as "one state exercising power over another" but rather as one of the many instruments of class dominance.HMS Conqueror wrote:Marx's "anarchism" is just another dialectical dodge, whereby he plays with definitions to argue it's not really a state if everyone likes it and it's run by the proletariat
So ... your argument is that poor are poor because of reasons they themselves can affect?HMS Conqueror wrote:Because poverty and excess eating have similar causes: ignorance, lack of self-discipline, low time preference, etc.OKAY,mind explaining WHY obesity is predicted by socio economic status and ZIP codes?
Are you saying that no one who is poor is capable of self-improvement? Like for srsly?Spoonist wrote:So ... your argument is that poor are poor because of reasons they themselves can affect?HMS Conqueror wrote:Because poverty and excess eating have similar causes: ignorance, lack of self-discipline, low time preference, etc.OKAY,mind explaining WHY obesity is predicted by socio economic status and ZIP codes?
But I am certainly not making the different claim that all poverty can be self-corrected. For instance, ignorance is also related to IQ, which is heritable.That ... poor are more ignorant and less self-disciplined, etc?
Why this stalling attempt?HMS Conqueror wrote:Are you saying that no one who is poor is capable of self-improvement? Like for srsly?
If your theory was correct then adopted children who usually come from poorer circumstances (and thus lower IQ) would have IQ more like their biological parents instead of like their adoptive parents.HMS Conqueror wrote:For instance, ignorance is also related to IQ, which is heritable.
Given that self-discipline and ignorance are presumably normally distributed, and people who are at the bad end of the distribution of these traits are less able to make good decisions or do well in employment, does it not stand obviously to reason? Before we go on, do you seriously dispute that poor people are less self-disciplined and more ignorant on average than middle class people, whatever the reason for that may be? Or do you deny that people who are ignorant or lack self-discipline even exist?Spoonist wrote:Why this stalling attempt?HMS Conqueror wrote:Are you saying that no one who is poor is capable of self-improvement? Like for srsly?
You were talking genericly about poverty and poor people, thus you were not talking about a minority of the poor, instead you were talking about generic traits/abilities of the poor, as in most of them.
So stop trying shift the focus please. Instead just answer the questions.
Do you consider poor people to be more ignorant? Do you consider poor people less self-disciplined?
If so then WHY do you think that is?
Twin studies show that IQ is mostly heritable. Do you have a source, or did you think it was too obvious for that?If your theory was correct then adopted children who usually come from poorer circumstances (and thus lower IQ) would have IQ more like their biological parents instead of like their adoptive parents.HMS Conqueror wrote:For instance, ignorance is also related to IQ, which is heritable.
That is obviously wrong. So your theory cannot be correct.
Education has been demonstrated not to raise long-term IQ. Instead IQ is used as a predictor of educational outcomes.Instead IQ is more related to education than it is to inherent talent. This is also proven by the general public education in the industrializing 19th cen as a net profit for the states who rolled out such reform.
Why these attempts to circumvent the question? I don't get it, why would you want to weasel away from your own opinion on a topic you obviously have strong feelings about? It just looks bad and is counter productive to any kind of dialog.HMS Conqueror wrote:Given that self-discipline and ignorance are presumably normally distributed, and people who are at the bad end of the distribution of these traits are less able to make good decisions or do well in employment, does it not stand obviously to reason? Before we go on, do you seriously dispute that poor people are less self-disciplined and more ignorant on average than middle class people, whatever the reason for that may be? Or do you deny that people who are ignorant or lack self-discipline even exist?Spoonist wrote:Why this stalling attempt?HMS Conqueror wrote:Are you saying that no one who is poor is capable of self-improvement? Like for srsly?
You were talking genericly about poverty and poor people, thus you were not talking about a minority of the poor, instead you were talking about generic traits/abilities of the poor, as in most of them.
So stop trying shift the focus please. Instead just answer the questions.
Do you consider poor people to be more ignorant? Do you consider poor people less self-disciplined?
If so then WHY do you think that is?
First note that I made no such claims, instead I showed why your theory couldn't be true. You see it's usually so that it is customary for the one proposing a theory to provide backing evidence while to disprove a theory all you need to do is show any discrepancy to it. In that passage you were defending a claim that ignorance is related to IQ which in turn is related to poverty. I say that is wrong and give examples. So if we back up, do you dispute that kids adopted will have an IQ more closely resembling their adoptive parents than their biological ones? If you do not dispute that then how do propose to change your theory? Same thing for general public education in the industrializing 19th cen.HMS Conqueror wrote:Twin studies show that IQ is mostly heritable. Do you have a source, or did you think it was too obvious for that?If your theory was correct then adopted children who usually come from poorer circumstances (and thus lower IQ) would have IQ more like their biological parents instead of like their adoptive parents.HMS Conqueror wrote:For instance, ignorance is also related to IQ, which is heritable.
That is obviously wrong. So your theory cannot be correct.Education has been demonstrated not to raise long-term IQ. Instead IQ is used as a predictor of educational outcomes.Instead IQ is more related to education than it is to inherent talent. This is also proven by the general public education in the industrializing 19th cen as a net profit for the states who rolled out such reform.
Reality contestants are usually poor, as are celebs before they become famous (which, of course, is not to deny they became rich, but it's only a tiny fraction of the sample). And yes I also will grant you that many rich kids become ignorant or lazy because they don't need to know anything or work to maintain their lifestyle, but again only a tiny sample of the not-poor population.Spoonist wrote:Why these attempts to circumvent the question? I don't get it, why would you want to weasel away from your own opinion on a topic you obviously have strong feelings about? It just looks bad and is counter productive to any kind of dialog.
Then to show good form and answer your questions here:
1) Yes I do think that ignorance exist, I believe such evidence is right before my eyes.
2) Yes I do think that lack of self-discipline exist, that is why I'm chatting here instead of doing what I'm supposed to.
3) Do I think that ignorance and lack of self-discipline is inherent traits of poor?
Nope, when I'm looking for ignorant people with a lack of self-discipline I would look among spoiled rich kids. Or reality show contestants, definately those. Whenever they have combined those two factors there have definately been some zingers. Like "the Simple life" and whatever that show on MTV with Jessica Simpson and her then husband was called. My oh my, that is ignorance and lack of self-discipline in a tight package.
Just because you are uneducated doesn't necessarily correlate with being ignorant unless you are religious.
Yes. So does the empirical evidence. This is one instance where even wiki is a good reference: "Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.9.[5]" These results come from twin studies.First note that I made no such claims, instead I showed why your theory couldn't be true. You see it's usually so that it is customary for the one proposing a theory to provide backing evidence while to disprove a theory all you need to do is show any discrepancy to it.
So if we back up, do you dispute that kids adopted will have an IQ more closely resembling their adoptive parents than their biological ones?
Be careful: the most we can say in absence of evidence is that we don't know, since both are positive claims. It's like saying that in absence of evidence that the sky is blue, we must assume it to be composed of a spectrum of every colour except blue.In that passage you were defending a claim that ignorance is related to IQ which in turn is related to poverty.
Short term IQ increases have been demonstrated from educational training, but they almost always revert over a period of months or years.If you do not dispute that then how do propose to change your theory? Same thing for general public education in the industrializing 19th cen.
Then secondly, are we talking about the same IQ?
As in the MENSA IQ tests which you consistently score better at if you study for them?
As in the IQ tests where if you give kids candy for performing well then they will consistently score higher?
Did you miss the lesson on the Flynn Effect?
This is possible. People who think strongly otherwise do so for political reasons - the evidence is currently inconclusive.Are you one of those who think that africans scoring lower than euros on IQ tests are more related to their genetical heritage than it is due to their living environment?
Let's have a review of the comment that provoked my response:HMS Conqueror wrote:To whom do you think it is offensive? If to gays, why do you think it is bad to be a superhero? And if to superheroes, why do you think it is bad to be gay?Dalton wrote:Oh please. You make a ridiculously offensive blanket statement like that and you expect me to wave it off like it's nothing? You obnoxious turd.
I suspect you are simply type of person who enjoys finding ways to take offense to things, so as to feel morally superior to others without the trouble of actually doing or sacrificing anything yourself.
Your ad-hoc bullshit handwaving aside, the fact that you're backpedaling furiously while trying to build up a strawman here to make me look like some sort of sanctimonious overly-sensitive blowhard for calling you out makes me want to bring down the banhammer on your stupid ass. We don't use "gay" in a derogatory manner here, ever. You get two warnings and a sudden-death instaban. Next boo-boo, you go bye-bye.HMS Conqueror wrote:Come on, they're all incredibly gay.
It's a complicated as hell problem is what it is. Obesity in America stems from a lot of places, though in a lot of middle class people with decent access to healthy food and leisure time for exercise, then, yeah, a very large proportion of obesity in that class is due simply to eating too much and not exercising enough.PainRack wrote:To be fair,its would be too simplistic to say environmental determination is the most important factor in obesity,but I doubt that this is what Ahklut means,when he justified US household spending on food.
Do you see why the bolded makes your point irrelevant?PainRack wrote:Why is it that after controlling for income and education, the fact that living near accessible veggies and fruits increase the likihood of having a more healthful diet?
Wtf.... how on earth do you parse that?Surlethe wrote:Do you see why the bolded makes your point irrelevant?PainRack wrote:Why is it that after controlling for income and education, the fact that living near accessible veggies and fruits increase the likihood of having a more healthful diet?
It's a matter of interpretation.Surlethe wrote:HMS Conqueror says that poor people are fat because they don't have the self-discipline to eat well. You guys are saying that poor people are fat because it's hard to get healthy food. I don't see a contradiction there.
So you are lucky enough not to know the shows that I referenced, good for you, they were a detriment to humanity. But just for clarity Jessica Simpson, Nicole Richie and Paris Hilton was from high SES.HMS Conqueror wrote:Reality contestants are usually poor, as are celebs before they become famous (which, of course, is not to deny they became rich, but it's only a tiny fraction of the sample). And yes I also will grant you that many rich kids become ignorant or lazy because they don't need to know anything or work to maintain their lifestyle, but again only a tiny sample of the not-poor population.Spoonist wrote:Nope, when I'm looking for ignorant people with a lack of self-discipline I would look among spoiled rich kids. Or reality show contestants, definately those. Whenever they have combined those two factors there have definately been some zingers. Like "the Simple life" and whatever that show on MTV with Jessica Simpson and her then husband was called. My oh my, that is ignorance and lack of self-discipline in a tight package.
Because chavs are not representative of the poor? Because british and american "poor and proud of it" white trash counter culture doesn't really translate that well to the rest of the world? Because rich can have bad social norms and low IQ and still remain rich or even increase their wealth? Because hitting someone hard over the head with metal while also wearing metal has been the staple standard qualification for the very rich in the UK for at least a thousand years?HMS Conqueror wrote:I simply do not see how anyone can deny that bad social norms, low IQ, etc. would lead to poverty, and that therefore one would expect these traits to be more common (not universal) in the impoverished population.
Ah, I see. So does your view comes from a misunderstanding of those studies then? Have you read them? Or any other studies in the field from the last decade?HMS Conqueror wrote:Yes. So does the empirical evidence. This is one instance where even wiki is a good reference: "Estimates in the academic research of the heritability of IQ have varied from below 0.5[2] to a high of 0.9.[5]" These results come from twin studies.Spoonist wrote:First note that I made no such claims, instead I showed why your theory couldn't be true. You see it's usually so that it is customary for the one proposing a theory to provide backing evidence while to disprove a theory all you need to do is show any discrepancy to it.
So if we back up, do you dispute that kids adopted will have an IQ more closely resembling their adoptive parents than their biological ones?
2 - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... 468a0.html
"Maternal effects, often assumed to be negligible, account for 20% of covariance between twins and 5% between siblings, and the effects of genes are correspondingly reduced, with two measures of heritability being less than 50%. "
NB: This is only a low estimate of genetic contribution to IQ, claiming that some is due to conditions in the womb. It isn't disputing that IQs end up in line with biological rather than adoptive parent IQs, only the proportion of this that can be assigned to genetics. And despite this genetics remains the largest single factor.
5 - http://www.springerlink.com/content/t08 ... 43/?MUD=MP
"The powerful quantitative genetic design of identical and fraternal twins reared apart (112 pairs) and matched twins reared together (111 pairs) was employed to assess the extent of genetic influence on individual differences in cognitive abilities during the last half of the life span. General cognitive ability yielded a heritability estimate of about .80 in two assessments 3 years apart as part of the Swedish Adoption/Twin Study of Aging."
What? Uhm, its your words not mine, so it should follow that it should have been you who should have been careful. Let's review shall we? You said:HMS Conqueror wrote:Be careful: the most we can say in absence of evidence is that we don't know, since both are positive claims. It's like saying that in absence of evidence that the sky is blue, we must assume it to be composed of a spectrum of every colour except blue.Spoonist wrote:In that passage you were defending a claim that ignorance is related to IQ which in turn is related to poverty.
Let's see if I can sum this up in an easily digestibly short lesson.HMS Conqueror wrote:No one claims the Flynn effect is due to state education. It has been observed in populations that have already graduated from school. The most plausible education-related explanation is increase in 'teaching to the test' which somewhat increases familiarity with IQ test-type questions.Spoonist wrote:Did you miss the lesson on the Flynn Effect?
Revert? Do I detect a misunderstanding of what IQ is and what it predicts?HMS Conqueror wrote:Short term IQ increases have been demonstrated from educational training, but they almost always revert over a period of months or years.Spoonist wrote:As in the MENSA IQ tests which you consistently score better at if you study for them?
Nope, people who think otherwise does not do so for political reasons. You see scientists try to exclude all other factors before jumping to conclusions. But the reverse is true. Nationalists and racists want there to be such a correlation and thus intrerpret the data into their world image.HMS Conqueror wrote:This is possible. People who think strongly otherwise do so for political reasons - the evidence is currently inconclusive.Spoonist wrote:Are you one of those who think that africans scoring lower than euros on IQ tests are more related to their genetical heritage than it is due to their living environment?